[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#589403: linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: rndis_host fails to create an interface for an HTC tatoo phone



 Hello,

I've tried your module, but I get the "unknown symbol in module error"
when insmod'ing it. I successfully recompiled a new kernel with your
patch included instead:

jonathan@nala:/opt $ head linux-2.6-2.6.32/debian/changelog
linux-2.6 (2.6.32-15a~test) UNRELEASED; urgency=low

  * Testing patches ../0001-rndis_host-Poll-status-and-control-channels-
    concurre.patch

 -- root <root@nala.mshome.net>  Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:46:09 +0200

linux-2.6 (2.6.32-15) unstable; urgency=low

  [ Ben Hutchings ]
jonathan@nala:/opt $ stat /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.32-5-686
  File: `/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.32-5-686'
  Size: 2287168       Blocks: 4480       IO Block: 4096   regular file
Device: 805h/2053d    Inode: 644367      Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
Access: 2010-07-19 16:53:32.000000000 +0200
Modify: 2010-07-19 16:33:40.000000000 +0200
Change: 2010-07-19 16:53:50.000000000 +0200
jonathan@nala:/opt $ apt-cache show linux-image-2.6.32-5-686
Package: linux-image-2.6.32-5-686
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: kernel
Installed-Size: 76188
Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-15a~test

I did

dpkg -i --force-depends linux-image-... linux-headers-...

after the packages were built. dpkg complained about the linux-image
package having version ~test1 and requesting linux-base >=
2.6.32-5~test1, whereas my linux-base was only 2.6.32-5, which is why I
had to force the install. I still see no change with your patch applied,
sorry.

Output from dmesg

[  590.724628] scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access     HTC      Android Phone   
0100 PQ: 0 ANSI: 2
[  590.742373] sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI removable disk
[  594.006027] usb 1-3: USB disconnect, address 5
[  594.320128] usb 1-3: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and
address 6
[  594.465153] usb 1-3: New USB device found, idVendor=0bb4, idProduct=0ffe
[  594.465170] usb 1-3: New USB device strings: Mfr=3, Product=2,
SerialNumber=1
[  594.465182] usb 1-3: Product: Android Phone
[  594.465191] usb 1-3: Manufacturer: HTC
[  594.465200] usb 1-3: SerialNumber: SH9ANLG01978
[  594.465546] usb 1-3: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[  594.540898] usbcore: registered new interface driver cdc_ether
[  594.562132] usb0: register 'rndis_host' at usb-0000:00:1d.7-3, RNDIS
device, 6a:b4:67:d3:a3:4f
[  594.562488] usbcore: registered new interface driver rndis_host
[  594.637517] cfg80211: Using static regulatory domain info
[  594.637525] cfg80211: Regulatory domain: US
[  594.637530]  (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth), (max_antenna_gain,
max_eirp)
[  594.637539]  (2402000 KHz - 2472000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 2700 mBm)
[  594.637548]  (5170000 KHz - 5190000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 2300 mBm)
[  594.637557]  (5190000 KHz - 5210000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 2300 mBm)
[  594.637565]  (5210000 KHz - 5230000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 2300 mBm)
[  594.637574]  (5230000 KHz - 5330000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 2300 mBm)
[  594.637582]  (5735000 KHz - 5835000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (600 mBi, 3000 mBm)
[  594.638068] cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: US
[  594.652899] usbcore: registered new interface driver rndis_wlan

Is there anything I can do?

jonathan

On 07/18/2010 02:12 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 13:52 +0200, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply! I'm amazed.
>>
>> I cannot use your pre-built amd64 module because I'm not at work
>> anymore, and although I still have my phone with me, the machine I'm
>> using is a 686 now.
> There is also a 686 build in the same place.
>
>> I cannot apply your patch either. I'm running testing, and the
>> rndis_host.c file looks like this:
>>
>> int rndis_command(struct usbnet *dev, struct rndis_msg_hdr *buf, int buflen)
>> {
>>     struct cdc_state    *info = (void *) &dev->data;
>>     int            master_ifnum;
>>     int            retval;
>>     unsigned        count;
>>     __le32            rsp;
>>     u32            xid = 0, msg_len, request_id;
>>
>> Which is obviously not what you diff'd against (the patch fails in this
>> area).
> [...]
>
> I think you're looking at the unpatched source.  You can use the
> debian/bin/test-patches script to apply the new patch.
>
> Ben.
>



Reply to: